The centralization of ownership of the private media in the United States and elsewhere has become increasingly pronounced, at the same time that its reporting has become increasingly one-sided and monolithic. My blog seeks to expose this lack of objectivity and present alternative ideas that point in the direction of much-needed fundamental change.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The OAS Has Contributed to Venezuelan Polarization and Undermined the Call for National Dialogue

Foreign
actors such as the Organization of American States need to play a neutral role
in Venezuela if they are to contribute to the process of reestablishing
stability and avoiding civil war or anarchy. The two sides in the conflict are
in a deadlock and at this point neither one is poised to emerge victorious, at
least in the near future. Polarization has reached new heights.

Furthermore,
neither side has an air-tight justification for its positions and actions. Indeed,
the problems the nation is facing defy easy solutions. While the government of
Nicolás Maduro has committed its share of errors, the opposition has also
assumed positions that do not reflect popular sentiment, which is in favor of
national reconciliation and a focus on concrete economic solutions rather than
political confrontation.

The Maduro
government’s case cannot be dismissed as lacking substance, as if it were an
authoritarian regime. The bellicose behavior of
opposition street brigades including the destruction of public property and the
killing and wounding of numerous security forces –over the last two months as
well as during a four months period in 2014 – would be labeled terrorism in the
U.S. and elsewhere. Protesters have also systematically blocked traffic in major
street arteries, often by starting fires from sidewalk to sidewalk. Furthermore,
Maduro has called for open discussions with no strings attached, a proposition
that the opposition turned down both in 2014 and 2017. On the other hand, the
government provoked the opposition this year by forbidding the electoral
participation of governor and former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles
for 15 years on allegations of corruption. It also rescheduled state-wide
elections, which were slated for December 2016, by one year. While the dozens
of deaths related to the protests have occurred under disputed circumstances,
the excesses on the part of security forces both in 2014 and this year have
been widely recognized, even by the government itself.

This is
just the beginning of a list of pros and cons with regard to the government’s
democratic commitment, as well as that of the opposition. The point is that the
good guy- bad guy narrative is simplistic and does not stand up to the facts.

In spite of
the nebulousness and complexity, important international actors such as the OAS
as well as the U.S. mainstream media have failed to achieve even a modest degree
of impartiality. Specifically, OAS secretary general LuisAlmagro has failed to place himself above Venezuela’s internal
politics and to facilitate a peaceful and constructive resolution of the
conflict. Instead, his statements without exception have been unequivocally in
line with the opposition’s narrative and demands.

Almagro’s
openly hostile position toward the Maduro government inadvertently strengthens
the hard-line position in the Chavista movement and the opposition, both of
which are resistant to dialogue.His
intromission and discourse that questions the Venezuelan government’s
democratic credentials serve to embolden the radicals in the opposition and
further polarize the nation. Almagro conflates pressing economic problems and
the alleged authoritarianism of the Maduro government. This line strengthens
the hand of the opposition hard liners who dismiss all actions (including
regional elections) that do not contribute to immediate regime change. In
contrast, the moderates within the opposition – although at this point they
have no visible national leader – favor emphasizing economic issues in order to
reach out to the popular sectors of the population who are most affected by the
economic calamity, attract some of the disenchanted Chavistas, and at the same
time accept dialogue with government representatives. The moderates therefore
place an accent mark on economic issues more than political ones.

In short,
the OAS should assume a balanced position by criticizing both sides for their
intransigence and specific actions that contribute to confrontation. Along
these lines, the organization should call on the government and the opposition to
negotiate in earnest. At the same time, it should name a nonpartisan committee
to investigate disputed events.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Steve Ellner has taught economic history at the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela since 1977. He is the author of numerous books and journal and magazine articles on Venezuela history and politics. He frequently lectures on Venezuela and Latin American political developments in the U.S. and elsewhere. He received his Ph.D. in Latin American history at the University of New Mexico in 1980.